Posted on 05/13/2016 6:35:59 AM PDT by nikos1121
Over the last three months, Trump watchers have noticed that former House speaker and 2012 Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich has been consistently advocating on Trump’s behalf in the media, on Capitol Hill, among K Street power brokers, and on social media.
In fact, Gingrich has morphed into Trump’s unofficial ambassador for GOP peace and unity, while also seeking converts in hostile territory. Gingrich is the most recognized and respected member of the GOP establishment who is defending the insurgent candidate — even as Trump rails against that same establishment. But now, it has become apparent that Gingrich is waging an active campaign to become Donald Trump’s running mate.
Validating those efforts, Gingrich’s name recently appeared in the pages of the New York Times on a list of “Who Might (or Might Not) Be Donald Trump’s Running Mate if He’s the Nominee.” Which leads one to ask: Could a Trump-Gingrich ticket be a brilliant game-changing winner, or would Gingrich be buying a first-class ticket on the Trump Titanic?
These days, any Trump World speculation is incomplete without comments from Roger Stone — Trump’s high-profile, long-time, on-again-off-again unofficial consigliere who was called “Donald Trump’s Donald Trump” in a recent Politico interview. When I asked Stone about a Trump-Gingrich ticket he said, “Newt has been enormously helpful defending Trump against the establishment” and that he “should be on Trump’s short list.”
Most tellingly, Stone told me that “Newt is a revolutionary, and Trump is leading a revolution.” Curious about Gingrich’s reaction to Stone’s “revolution” comment and to his name being mentioned on the Times’ VP list, I reached out to the former Speaker. This is what he said:
It is an honor to be mentioned. We need a new Contract with America to outline a 100-day plan to take back Washington from the lobbyists, bureaucrats, unions, and leftists. After helping in 1980 with Reagan and 1995 as speaker I know we have to move boldly and decisively before the election results wear off and the establishment starts fighting us. That is my focus.
His answer speaks volumes. In the Times article Gingrich is quoted as saying that “it would be very hard for a patriotic citizen to say no” and that “very few people pass up the chance to be a heartbeat away from the presidency.” I think it’s safe to say that Newt is actively developing a new Contract while awaiting Trump’s call.
I asked Mark McKinnon, former chief media advisor to the presidential campaigns of President George W. Bush and Senator John McCain to weigh in on a Trump-Gingrich ticket. He told me:
McKinnon also added this perspective:
“It’s what Bill Clinton did when he picked another young southerner [Al Gore] for his ticket,” McKinnon noted. Gingrich may not be your traditional populist outsider — he was, after all, the speaker of the House of Representatives — but Newt still maintains a patina of “outsiderness.” If Trump is the embodiment of the populist fantasy of the outsider — with no political experience — who is thrust into power by an angry electorate with a mandate to turn Washington on its head, right all the wrongs, and “make America great again,” Gingrich could be Trump’s wise sidekick.
Even Trump knows the outsider-reformist mission is next to impossible, and that is precisely why he is quoted in another New York Times piece saying that he wants a VP with “a strong political background, who was well respected on the Hill, who can help me with legislation, and who could be a great president.”
Now, who does that sound like? Besides Newt, only four of ten others on the Times VP list seem to be open to running for the nomination rather than running away from it. They are retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, New Jersey governor Chris Christie, Oklahoma governor Mary Fallin, and Alabama senator Jeff Sessions.
For the record, Sessions is the only senator who has endorsed Trump, and is openly advising his campaign. Even though the Times lists Ohio governor John Kasich as a possible Trump pick — I made the case for why a Trump-Kasich ticket would make sense back in January — that is looking less and less likely with each passing day. But even when it comes to passing legislation and pulling the levers of power, Gingrich’s skillset and experience are actually better suited to helping Trump than are Kasich’s.
To use a military analogy: While serving on Capitol Hill, Representative Kasich was a mere one-star general. Gingrich, on the other hand, was the five-star supreme commander when, in 1994, he led the “Republican Revolution” that took back control of the House after four decades of Democratic party rule.
Roger Stone told me that “Gingrich is a man who loves public service.” And I say, at age 73, he has everything to gain and nothing to lose — except maybe his Fox News contract. Even if a Trump-Gingrich ticket were to lose, Newt’s media profile would have been substantially raised and he could cash in with new television contracts, as an author, and on the speaking circuit.
There are other advantages. We already know that in a no-holds-barred Clinton vs. Trump general-election campaign, Trump will be bombastic as ever. Gingrich, as Trump’s running mate, could be deployed to throw policy red-meat back at Hillary and Bill.
Gingrich would be especially effective when the Clintons’ wax eloquent about their presidential legacy. That is when Gingrich could speak real truth to power because he — more than any other person in Washington — helped shape the Clinton presidency from his perch as speaker of the House. During those volatile years (a period that culminated in Gingrich’s shocking resignation), it was the Clintons vs. Gingrich in political hand-to-hand combat.
Now, more than two decades later, a potential Trump-Gingrich vs. the Clinton Machine matchup has all the makings of an epic battle. Furthermore, if Trump remained weak on policy specifics, speaking only in broad strokes and grand gestures, Gingrich could play wing-man: Trump knows that no one is more versed in the nuances of foreign and domestic policy than Newt Gingrich.
There is an obvious downside, however, of a Trump-Gingrich ticket: With gender issues shaping up to be a yuuge factor in the general election, Newt’s three marriages are sure to raise red flags that Team Clinton will joyfully exploit. Fortunately for him, since 2000, it appears that he has been happily married to the very accomplished Callista Gingrich.
Still, with six marriages between Trump and Gingrich, one can only imagine all the trophy-wife jokes that would be thrown at the Republican ticket — especially given that both men are currently married to stunning women 20-plus-years their junior.
The real question is whether Newt would hinder Trump’s ability to attract female voters. That’s unlikely — the real onus for attracting women voters will fall on Trump.
But assuming Callista plays an active role in the campaign, she could be a tremendous asset both to Gingrich and to Trump, helping to smooth some of their rougher edges. Gingrich is media savvy and a mega fundraising asset. He is good on the campaign trail and could solidify support among conservatives. Newt and Callista could even help rally Catholics.
Most important, Gingrich legitimizes Trump’s candidacy and would refine Trump’s somewhat unartful domestic and foreign-policy positions. And if the current general-election polls are correct, and Trump has alienated Hispanic and female voters to the point where the Republican ticket is going to be soundly beaten — Gingrich could possibly use some of his own political capital to help minimize down-ballot losses by stumping for endangered Republican senators and members of Congress.
A Trump-Gingrich ticket would send a strong signal that “Make America Great Again” is not just a campaign slogan but the theme for a new Republican Revolution — with Newt Gingrich as its chief strategist.
Been hearing this more and more. It makes a ton of sense. I think he is acceptable to Trump’s base, but he’s someone whose presence would be soothing to the sweater-vest Republicans as well.
LOVE IT.
I would be perfectly satisfied with such a pick - Trump is said to be vetting out his short list and Newt has been thoroughly vetted from his last run - no nasty surprises to divert the campaign.
A pro-life democrat?
Women will increasingly move towards Trump as a strong man. His admitted crude way of handling a couple of women in the debates, will soon be eclipsed in people's images, by clashes over the critical issues, which will reflect how safe will be the American future. The natural instinctive craving of the American female for security, will, very frankly, give Trump the advantage over his opponent, among normal women. Just watch the phenomena unfold!
As to the "Hispanic" vote? No Republican loyal to our heritage is going to get the type of Hispanic vote that rallies to the agitations we have recently witnessed out west. It would be a colossal, self defeating waste of effort to even try. But as for as the propertied Hispanic vote; the vote of those legally here; those who embrace the Anglo/Celtic culture of the Founders. Trump will get more of that than would any other Republican, except maybe Ted Cruz--and actually I believe Donald won that vote in Nevada over Cruz.
LMAO. I seriously suggested Megyn Kelly. The Dems would never attack her for her lack of experience\qualifications. That would be a war on women.
Megyn is a great prosecutor and would tear Hillary to pieces. It’s better to have another woman do that.
Also, the media would love to have one of their own picked as VP.
And Trump would be seen as a great man for picking a former critic.
The only risk is that Trump could die in office and Megyn would take over.
I am strongly in favor if it as well. It would go a long way towards asuaging my concerns about Trump flipping leftward once in office.
That said, I doubt it will happen.
Newt is unquestionably smart, but he would simply be a magnet for criticism. Remember how he was run out of the House? I won’t repeat the details here, but the attack was not pretty, and led to his resignation.
All that would come up again.
I think Trump needs a strong, steady VP with unassailable character as well as experience and expertise. I’m thinking Jeff Sessions, the first Senator to come out in support of Newt. Those who have followed his career know that the Tea Party conservatives and evangelicals would love him. And yesterday he wrote a great editorial for USA Today decrying the march o globalism.
I tried to post it here but was unable to do so due to copyright issues.
The editorial is being discussed on FOX this AM, though. It is everything one worried about the loss of American sovereignty could want. With Newt, you will not get this at all.
That probably would be the perfect place for him. On the ticket, I think he has too much baggage from his term as Speaker. He left that position with a lot of tarnish that still sticks to him, even though he has his supporters. But my guess is a Newt supporter is probably already a Trump supporter.
A trifecta of bulldogs trump chritie and gingrich we need bulldogs, lets not forget guliani and west.
Newt as VP or chief-of-staff immediately kills the "Trump is not a conservative" thing. Of the two, I prefer COS, 'cause he is a wee bit on the elderly side.
Here’s a tidbit about Senator Marsha Blackburn.
She was a senior advisor for Mitt Romney but resigned
early on and endorsed Fred Thompson for president.
Not sure about Gingrich, however, the Repubs/Trump would be wise to do another “contract with America” thing this election.
IMO, the main criterion for a VP is his/her ability to bring in votes the POTUS candidate lacks. A classic example is JFK/LBJ. I can’t see Gingrich doing this for Trump. Sarah Pain can’t, either. All these people will bring are more Freepers.
I like it in principle, but I’d expect Trump to dangle Newt out there, but instead choose someone who can lock down a blue or purple state.
I thought Sessions was older but he is 69 the same age as Trump.
He would be a great VP. I’m going to check out his USA Today editorial. Thanks!
Make it so.
I think Ann Coulter said something like that, re: illegal immigration.
I agree Newt would be a great Chief of Staff.
I think Michele Bachmann would be a good VP pick. Pro-life and understands the Muslim/illegal immigration problem. Trump could put her in charge of that issue so he could focus on the economy and foreign affairs.
I have a lot of respect for Newt.
But...he is too old, and too much of a lightning rod.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.